Are these both easy folds? First hand is a small sample on the villain, but he had 0% 4-bet prior to this hand, and only 2% 3-bet, so it seemed super strong to me. Second hand, is anybody ever shoving here with anything less than the nut flush?

Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

SB: $3.82 (95.5 bb)
Hero (BB): $7.51 (187.8 bb)
UTG: $2.20 (55 bb)
MP: $4.26 (106.5 bb)
CO: $6.26 (156.5 bb)
BTN: $1.19 (29.7 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q Q
2 folds, CO raises to $0.12, 2 folds, Hero raises to $0.38, CO raises to $0.90, Hero calls $0.52

Flop: ($1.82) 7 3 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $1.21, Hero ???

Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

BTN: $5.96 (149 bb)
SB: $3.84 (96 bb)
Hero (BB): $4.42 (110.5 bb)
UTG: $5.53 (138.3 bb)
MP: $4.31 (107.7 bb)
CO: $4.40 (110 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7 Q
UTG folds, MP calls $0.04, 3 folds, Hero checks

Flop: ($0.10) 9 Q 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.06, MP calls $0.06

Turn: ($0.22) K (2 players)
Hero bets $0.16, MP calls $0.16

River: ($0.54) 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.40, MP raises to $4.05 and is all-in, Hero ???

Hand 1:

Small sample on villain mean you can tell nothing about his 4bet% or 3bet%

OTF once you got 4betted, just fold or shove, never ever calling here. You expect villain to check OTF? To flop a set without proper odds?

Again if readless i would fold here

Hand 2: I would called here all day long, except when villain is a nit

Villain open limped OTF means he sucked and his range was wide, he might have a straight, a slow-played set, or a lower flush

If he got nut flush then it's a cooler

Again no stats on villain so it's tough

Hand 1 is pretty difficult, what kind of sample size did you have on villain?

Hand 2 instantly stacking off with zero thought.

OP,

What flop were you hoping for when you called his 4bet pre?
This is the best you can get on the flop.

I mean to say; play with a plan. If you thought you were ahead or flipping pre, you're still good on this flop. If you consider to fold to this flop, you would pretty much only continue with the hand if you'd hit a set and you didn't get good odds to setmine pre.

My thoughts on the hand: with 2% 3b and 0% 4b we can be pretty sure we are beat. We should take in account that we can, and should, resteal quite a lot in the bb, which villain probably knows. So he'll 4b a bit wider. But don't gambol here 160bb deep w/QQ imo.

I appreciate the feedback. After reading comments here, and thinking more about hand #1, I think I should have folded PF. Obviously if I have more stats on the villain it makes this decision easier, but it doesn't make sense to fold OTF if we call PF. I think I only had around 100 hands on the villain when this hand went down. I also think my mind has been playing tricks on me, because I have lost quite a few big hands in the past several weeks, where I felt I should have been able to get away from big hands. The QQ is a good example, that I would have either 5-bet or shoved after the flop without giving any consideration to what the villain's range or tendencies were.

This same reasoning was used in hand #2. The villain is running 27/4 with 1.1 aggression factor, so a loose passive fish shoves on the river on the river, alarms are going off in my head. Maybe I'm over thinking what the players at this level are doing, but a shove seems super crazy strong here. However, I do see the points being offered that there are a ton of straight hands, and lower flushes that maybe the fish think are good. I'm insta-calling any sizable raise here, but the push really threw me off guard, and I ended up folding.

Thanks again for the comments.

In hand 2 - put yourself in villain's shoes. Suppose he has the nut flush. If he shoves on the river, what is the most likely result? You are going to fold about 95% of the time, because he knows you don't have the nut flush -and what else will you call with? But he wants you to call, because he hit the nuts and wants to get paid.

But if he wanted to get paid, why didn't he raise you on the turn, when he hit the nuts? You are more likely to call there - but he let you skate and now expects you to call a shove? There are probably a few players who would do this with the nuts - but it is a terrible play. He should be trying to extract as much as he can - and calling the turn and shoving the river is going to get the least amount.

So it is much more likely that he doesn't have the nuts and now he is just bluffing and hoping you don't have a monster. No matter what he has it is a bluff - even if he thinks it is a good hand. The only hand he is representing there is the nuts - and it is highly unlikely that he has it. This is a snap call - and if it turns out he played the nuts that way then make a note and go on.

Note that it is a lot different if he raised you on the turn, you re-raised and then he re-raised all-in. I'm not sure I'm folding, but I certainly would think about it a lot more. In this case the nuts makes more sense.

Thanks for talking in depth about these hands. I think the discussions here help me improve more than books or videos at the moment. I definitely believe I was over thinking the hands when they were relatively straight forward. I figure the more hands I play and discuss here, the better off I will be moving forward.

I am learning already from the discussions, but I think second hand you should be very careful and think what if he has the nut hand and shoves or puts a big bet.

Assuming something like a 50% limping range for MP (I don't know; I don't play these stakes - could be larger), he has the nut hand around 1.5% of the time. There's only 7 combos of Ax suited hearts that he can hold (AJ/AT and A2-A6).

This is monsters under the bed syndrome. Snap call and expect to be good 98.5% of the time and make a note of what he jammed with there and how he played it (regardless of what it was; nut, two-pair, lower flush, set, straight, air).